Controversy! Technically your entries are past the deadline of March 1st, 2013 EST. Pray that the Scott is merciful and allows your entry. I am not optimistic about your chances!
Controversy! Technically your entries are past the deadline of March 1st, 2013 EST. Pray that the Scott is merciful and allows your entry. I am not optimistic about your chances!
He said in the post in the Cannabalt thread that entry wasn't closed.
Controversy! Technically your entries are past the deadline of March 1st, 2013 EST. Pray that the Scott is merciful and allows your entry. I am not optimistic about your chances!
I quote from the Round 1 post, "It's also not too late to sign up for the grand prix."
I have a suggestion/observation regarding the scoring system.
Tournament systems where large number of players are left without any points are bad. You want the points skewed towards the top but you also want a long tail. This is both due to the nature of statistical fluctuations and due to the relative importance of differences in placing (place 1 vs 2 is much more important than place 14 vs 15).
You can see the development of the F1 scoring system over time here.
Currently the tail is such that about half of drivers get points each race. I think this should be the case in the FRCFGP as well. With sixty participants the top 30 should get points. Eg:
This is also basic game design; out of sixty players there will be at least ten players who take this competition seriously and thus retention of only semi committed players (good both for the atmosphere of the GP and good because it gives those players a more enjoyable game) necessitates that rewards, i.e. points, be given out to more than just the top ten.
I agree. When the FRCFGP was just an idea, who knew there would be so many taking part? I thought there would be about 20-25 players, so the same points as F1 races would make sense. Now only giving points to the top ten seems like bad design.
Timo, I was thinking of that exact same problem already. I think we will definitely have to give poitns to more than just the top 10 or so.
That makes my goal of getting victory points every round way too easy. Maybe I should readjust my goal to be in top ten every round. It's basically the same thing.
Comments
EDIT: Also, are you planning an extension/bye week for PAX?
That being said, me too.
Tournament systems where large number of players are left without any points are bad. You want the points skewed towards the top but you also want a long tail. This is both due to the nature of statistical fluctuations and due to the relative importance of differences in placing (place 1 vs 2 is much more important than place 14 vs 15).
You can see the development of the F1 scoring system over time here.
Currently the tail is such that about half of drivers get points each race. I think this should be the case in the FRCFGP as well. With sixty participants the top 30 should get points. Eg:
25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
This is also basic game design; out of sixty players there will be at least ten players who take this competition seriously and thus retention of only semi committed players (good both for the atmosphere of the GP and good because it gives those players a more enjoyable game) necessitates that rewards, i.e. points, be given out to more than just the top ten.
200, 150, 129, 110, 95, 82, 70, 60, 52, 44, 38, 33, 28, 24, 21, 18, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
I think floor(exp(-ax+b)) does a pretty good job, though I decided to bump up first place a bit more.
That said, this is probably too top-heavy, so perhaps more design is warranted.